We’re going to have people saying unpopular things

J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting and potentially damaging to transgender women. In the past few years, several prominent academics who are transgender have made a series of accusations against the psychologist…Lynn Conway, a prominent computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail message comparing Dr. Bailey’s views to Nazi propaganda…Dr. Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford, said in reference to Dr. Bailey’s thesis in the book, “Bailey seems to make a living by claiming that the things people hold most deeply true are not true.”

Oh no, not that. If he does that then nothing is too bad to do to him.

Dr. Conway, the computer scientist, kept a running chronicle of the accusations against Dr. Bailey on her Web site…The site also included a link to the Web page of another critic of Dr. Bailey’s book, Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant. Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided…Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Nice, huh?

“What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field,” said Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar and patients’ rights advocate at Northwestern who, after conducting a lengthy investigation of Dr. Bailey’s actions, has concluded that he is essentially blameless. “If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.”

30 Responses to “We’re going to have people saying unpopular things”

I read that article in the NYT too, and thought the level of hostility toward the guy seemed way out of proportion to what he had said/done. I got the impression he had touched a nerve, said something terribly taboo. If it weren’t for the breaking of taboos, I don’t see why anyone would be so terribly upset that his book wasn’t based on rigorous science. There are lots of impressionistic books supported by anecdote or in depth interviews with a few people. This doesn’t get people jumping up and down. He said male to female transsexuals are excited by the the thought of themselves as women…it’s not obvious to me why this is a contemptible thing to say. Could be false, but it doesn’t seem contemptible.

But Bailey is not just a guy who wrote an “impressionistic book” (as Jean K. put it). He’s a working scientist who said, repeatedly and in various ways, that his book was based on scientific research (others’ and his own). But the science, as many people have pointed out, is shit. When a scientist writes a subjective book based on anecdotes and claims scientific validity for its conclusions – conclusions which not incidentally characterize an entire category of people as fucked-up liars – vigorous criticism is exactly what the scientist deserves.

Nothing Bailey did justifies the Nazi rhetoric (What’s new? Godwin’s Fallacy exists for a reason.), and Conway’s website is without a doubt even slimier than Bailey’s book. But the characterization that Bailey merely said “unpopular things” is a gross understatement. Bailey maligned a class of people who are already subject to extraordinary prejudice, and he borrowed the authority of science to do so while ignoring the methods, standards, and ethics of scientific research. That’s not merely politically incorrect or insulting, it’s bigotry given a scientific veneer. Remember The Bell Curve? Do you think Herrnstein & Murray deserve all the abuse they got for that book? Well, in terms of evidence and methodology, The Bell Curve is a masterwork of science if compared directly to The Man Who Would Be Queen. The book isn’t just terrible science, or even terrible non-scientific argument: It’s a terrible argument serving a terrible cause – insulting and misrepresenting some of the most misunderstood people on the planet.

For the most part, Bailey’s critics within academia focused on the shoddy justifications he offered for his over-broad, poorly-supported conclusions. Given that his justifications were so implausible and transparently subjective, they also questioned his motives. I would say that they were right to do so on both counts, and that the academic response to Bailey for the most part WAS vigorous free expression and inquiry, not a threat to it.

As for the response from the people he actually maligned… I dunno. I cannot condone the more extreme responses, but I have to admit that I understand them. When religious bigots tell self-serving lies about atheists (the much-maligned group I happen to belong to), I get pretty damned hot. Difference being, I’m not a nut-job.

Recognizing that there are some people who are just nuts is important in this kind of thing: The hate-mail and death-threat types are just a demographic fact – the crazy end of the bell curve, if you will – that anyone who speaks on social or political issues might find themselves dealing with if they’re unlucky. The existence of the whacko fringe in any protest movement is an unpleasant reality, but I don’t think it represents a threat to free expression in general. The whacko fringe who turn their anger into action are the problem (q.v. the anti-animal research terrorists), and so is anyone who does anything to encourage them – which is why this Conway woman and her website are far worse than anything Bailey did or deserves.

The Bell Curve argued that blacks have lower IQ’s which is an obviously insult. In this case the problem with what the man is saying isn’t as obvious. Would it actually completely undermine respect for transsexuals if there was an autoerotic element to what they want? Would that be an awful thing that made them deserve to be discriminated against?

What this dispute reminds me of is the controversy over whether rape is “about sex”. Back in the 80’s when I lived in super-politically correct Boston, you could not possibly say rape was about sex without causing huge offense. You had to say it was about power. I always secretly thought–couldn’t it be about both power and sex? I think the idea was that if you admitted it was about sex, then somehow you were giving rapists an excuse. (Huh?)

A little similarly here, sex must be left out of it. I wonder, is it even allowed to be a little part of it…or even with some people? I heard an interview with the sportswriter from the LA times recently–the one who recently went from male to female. His wife is divorcing him, and it sounds like his kids are none too pleased. He kept talking about wearing dresses and fancy shoes. He was suffering a huge loss in order to be a woman. It seems like folks like him need to understand what it’s all about, and that means letting scientists go at it without being hemmed in by political correctness.

I’ve just been reading Gould on prejudice-driven research, and the descriptions of Bailey’s work do rather sound as though it fits Gould’s paradigm for such work to a T (though I’m not saying that definitively: I’ll leave that to those who will read and test his work).

Trouble is, that has no relevance whatsoever to the abuse he’s been getting. We’re not talking about a critical slamming by his peers in the research comunity, after all – we’re talking a very nasty level of personal harassment. As OB points out, the intimidation cannot be excused by his incompetence and prejudice (even if these are at work).

“The Bell Curve argued that blacks have lower IQ’s which is an obviously insult.”

My understanding is that the finding was an objective fact, which it is unsafe to discuss for politically obvious reasons. However, it is very badly phrased. If there is a repeatable statistically significant difference between the mean IQ of the two populations, it does NOT mean ‘blacks have lower IQs’. Also, I think the behaviour of the high tail of the distributions would be of more interest.

Read Dreger’s report and I will be curious if anyone still has sympathy for Bailey’s detractors.

Btw, it’s a misrepresentation to claim that Bailey said that ”transsexuals are “better suited than genetic women are” for prostitution.’ I listened to that show and this very point is discussed at some length (at around 46.30)

I think the majority of those on Butterflies and Wheels would agree that the way to engage with an argument sincerely held and honestly put forward, but in one’s own view – wrong – is to demolish the argument, not the person putting it forward.

One is on slightly trickier ground when one suspects that the argument is being made by someone who knows themselves that what they are saying is false. It is tempting, and not necessarily wrong, to point this out. Which is to say that I’m not necessarily against Ad Hominem attacks in some circumstances. I’m pretty sure that Holocaust denier David Irving knows full well that he is talking nonsense, and I don’t think that there is anything wrong with basing one’s argument largely on that point. That the holocaust happened is, its fair to say, beyond reasonable doubt and one should not have to waste time arguing the obvious with the dishonest.

I know relatively little about Bailey’s area of research. I could well believe that he is a crank and a bigot. And I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out that he is. But that in no way justifies the downright nasty, utterly uncalled-for response of Ms James.

And nobody should ever be persecuted or harrassed merely because what they say is ‘offensive’ or ‘politically incorrect’. There is no reason why the truth could not turn out to be deeply offensive and profoundly politically incorrect.

(To take the Bell Curve example – I think this was probably honestly reported results from reasonably well-run studies. That the book’s hypothesis turned out to be wrong could only be ascertained because good, qualified scientists were able to look at the work that the authors had done, and point out the logical flaws in their argument – principally that IQ tests are NOT in fact a neutral measure of some abstract thing called ‘intelligence’. Far better in the long run to provide the counterargument than to try to shout down those saying things we do not like.)

“I’m pretty sure that Holocaust denier David Irving knows full well that he is talking nonsense, and I don’t think that there is anything wrong with basing one’s argument largely on that point.”

The thing about Irving is that it has been thoroughly documented that he falsified the evidence in many places, so one can base one’s argument on that fact. (Ironically, his falsification wouldn’t be known if Irving hadn’t tried to silence Deborah Lipstadt – hadn’t sued her and offered to settle if she would have all copies of her book withdrawn and pulped – and the defense hadn’t hired Richard Evans to spend a lot of time tracking down Irving’s sources and finding the small but important falsifications.) If Bailey’s critics want to do the same kind of research, they certainly should. But some of his critics were doing quite different kinds of things (different and all too familiar…look up Napoleon Chagnon if you don’t know why it’s familiar).

That wasn’t entirely clear. My point was that one can be pretty safe in claiming that Irving ‘knows full well that he is talking nonsense,’ because it’s pretty hard to falsify evidence multiple times without knowing that’s what you’re doing. Irving isn’t just a matter of differing opinions or interpretations; large-scale falsification of evidence puts him in a whole different category.

That’s why (well it’s one reason) I kept nagging away last year at this idea that there is a free speech right to lie. I say there isn’t. It’s not always a crime, it’s not always a matter for the courts, but it’s not a right, either. There is no free speech right to falsify evidence. No journalist (for instance) can deliberately distort and fabricate quotations and then claim that’s a free speech right as opposed to grounds for being fired. Irving’s not just a denier, he’s a falsifier.

I just want to recommend Bailey’s Northwestern website. If you think he’s a complete flake and a bigot, I think it will make you think otherwise. If he’s wrong, he’s just wrong, not actually wicked (like holocaust deniers, etc.) His amazon reviews are interesting too. His readers all seem very accepting of transsexuals, and only about a third are offended by his book (which is mostly about homosexuality, by the way).

“My point is that I just don’t know enough about the subject area to know whether Conway et al had good reason to accuse Bailey of the things they did, or not.”

Fine, Patrick. But why do you presume — as your syntax suggests — that there is any validity to Conway’s argument? Your very first sentence also subtly endorses a “where there’s smoke there is fire” approach. If you don’t know enough to have an opinion why are you offering one?

As I wrote, I urge you and everyone else who has interest in intellectual rigor to read Dr. Dreger’s report,

patrick, the only thing you said which is obviously objectionable is this: “That the book’s hypothesis turned out to be wrong could only be ascertained because good, qualified scientists were able to look at the work that the authors had done, and point out the logical flaws in their argument – principally that IQ tests are NOT in fact a neutral measure of some abstract thing called ‘intelligence’.”

Everyone knew this long before the publication of The Bell Curve. If you don’t understand that IQ is not in fact a neutral measure of some abstract thing called ‘intelligence’ by your third year as a psych major, you should already have flunked out by not passing your core research methods and statistics requirements – and that’s been true for fifty-plus years. The only working scientists (not ordinary folks, but Ph.D.s) who EVER ignore the basic truth that all an IQ score is a reliable measure of is performance on an IQ test are those who have entirely non-scientific axes to grind – hence the not-so-subtle bigotry of The Bell Curve.

It is the mix of judgmental conclusions and shoddy research methods that leads me to judge that what Bailey doing was ax-grinding, not science. Again, that’s not any excuse or reason for the level of intensely personal assaults he suffered (and indeed there could never be an excuse for some of those excesses). But it *is* reason for questioning his integrity as a scientist.

The only working scientists (not ordinary folks, but Ph.D.s) who EVER ignore the basic truth that all an IQ score is a reliable measure of is performance on an IQ test are those who have entirely non-scientific axes to grind – hence the not-so-subtle bigotry of The Bell Curve

Um, no. IQ tests correlate with (for instance) occupational status, and there is respectable scientific support for the view that there are average differences in IQ distributions between races and also between the sexes, and that such differences may be partly genetic.

The current scientific understanding of these issues is such that anyone who completely denies the possibility of their truth is doing so either out of insufficient knowledge or for political reasons.

Going to try and avoid starting a big argument about IQ and race/sex, but I’d point out that the IQ and gender claims are on very dodgy ground (rather unsurprisingly given that IQ tests tend to be designed for equal gender performance) often based on the work of people like Lynn who is objectively misleading in his work – and while racial groups differ in IQ it is far from established as being due to innate differences in intelligence since there are large socioeconomic and cultural confounders.

Yes; I don’t think either case is proven, but neither can they be dismissed as being disproven at this point. (The case for a flatter curve with the same midpoint for male IQ is stronger than any case for different midpoints).

I don’t entirely understand why either the gender or race possibilities are quite so controversial. The posited differences are of course population differences, and are also rather small, so no conclusions could legitimately be drawn about any individual. I (a white female) don’t feel threatened by the real possibility that I belong to a population which is genetically predisposed (subject to, as you say, all sorts of environmental factors) to end up with an average IQ somewhat lower than, say, the population of South-East Asian men.

potentilla – I think you ought to be worried – for instance, if you look at the evidence of how much more work is required of a female scientist to be considered as good as her male colleague you might be rather concerned about the addition of a lazy unproven view that there are simply far fewer women who are in the very clever category, given the obious existing biases against you.

As for the gender case not being disproved – well given that IQ tests are designed to have no difference, most IQ tests show no difference, many of the studies that do find a difference are dodgy, and meta-analytic studies showing little difference overall, we don’t really have much reason to think there is a difference, even if it isn’t ‘disproved’ in that odd sense that the existence of god isn’t disproved.

Which evidence? (this is a straightforward question, not a claim that there is no such evidence).

It seems to me that the longer tails for the male distribution is quite likley (which would go to your point about how many women are in the very clever category).

Purely personally, I have no reason to worry at all, since I am out of the fray for reasons which give me much more important things to worry about were I a worrying sort of person in the first place, and in any case don’t consider myself to have suffered discrimination during my career. Ought I be worrying on behalf of other people? well, maybe, but there are so many things in the world that are worthy of worry.

The variance question is an interesting one – I’m not aware of there being a huge amount of evidence for it, and what there is suffers somewhat from complications of the non-normality of IQ distributions at the extremes.

‘Evidence’ wise, there was a study done in Sweden that found women needed twice as many Nature papers to be peer rated as good as men, and another study of EU fellowships showing something similar.

What I’m trying to say about the variance thing is that studies that find a difference in variance typically find a very small difference, and then this difference is projected right out to the extremes of the theoretical normal IQ distribution to claim that there are more men with high IQ than women. Why this methodologically dubious is because (a) a high variance can be due to other forms of departures from statistical normality (like skewness) and doesn’t necessarily tell us about behaviour at the extremes of a distribution, and (b) these studies typically don’t actually find more really existing men with high IQs than women, but predict there would be based on a statistical model of how IQ is distributed.

I have form in the article of messing up italics tags; glad I finally fixed it. (Of course, if Ophelia could get Jeremy to implement preview functionality, I would have no excuse).

Thanks for the Swedish ref, which I managed to find (Wenneras & Wold for anyone else reading this). It’s interesting, but not conclusive in respect of perceptions of intelligence. My alternative hypothesis, based on many years of recruitment, is that women are perceived as more likely to go off and have babies. I haven’t yet checked whether this is plausible in relation to the likelihood of the ages of the candidates. ( I’m not saying that it is reasonable to make these assumptions when recruiting, btw, just that, as a matter of fact, people do).

Understand the variance point. I haven’t looked at the detailed criticism of the various Deary contributions (the Scottish one, and this one.

Actually, young male scientists in Sweden frequently take time off to take care of their children, so a prospective employer should not look to sex alone. Besides, weren’t the evaluators supposed to rate the scientific productivity the candidates had already demonstrated, not to estimate their future fertility?

IQ/sex, IQ/race – it’s the same issue: a difference in the average, or the distribution, will *inevitably* be treated by partisans as a statement about the *entire* group’s superiority [or more usually, of course, inferiority] to a white male ‘norm’. It always is, it always will be, until the blessed day when we are all coffee-coloured lesbians grown out of vats…

Do also bear in mind that there’s nothing on an IQ test that measures a tendency to sociopathic behaviour, or dishonesty, unreliability, or any other kind of aberrance – things you might *really* want to know if you were ever to contemplate using the results of such tests as anything but a trivial adornment.